Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+ANC\-4\s+vs\s+MFJ\s+Noise\s+Canceller\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+ANC\-4\s+vs\s+MFJ\s+Noise\s+Canceller\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. TopBand: ANC-4 vs MFJ Noise Canceller (score: 1): Author: sander@aud.alcatel.com (dick sander); Date: Thu, 4 Dec 97 08:22:37 CST; Last Oct I reported that I picked up a JPS ANC-4 noise canceller. I reported that it offered no real improvement to the noise that I experience (continous S9 level of bacon frying sound -not static c; /archives//html/Topband/1997-12/msg00079.html (12,361 bytes)
2. TopBand: ANC-4 vs MFJ Noise Canceller (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h @ juno.com); Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 18:26:54 EST; SNIPS Question: Can the same antenna be used for both ports? For instance many rigs bring the RX line out and back in at the transverter port. Would splitting the 2 signals and adding a delay line on; /archives//html/Topband/1997-12/msg00089.html (8,028 bytes)
3. TopBand: ANC-4 vs MFJ Noise Canceller (score: 1): Author: mystc@ix.netcom.com (mystc@ix.netcom.com); Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 14:28:46 -0800; Maybe the most important advantage of the MFJ at my station is the ability to vary the main antenna gain. When the signal on the noise port is too low on the ANC 4 , it cannot be nulled, whereas on t; /archives//html/Topband/1997-12/msg00090.html (7,443 bytes)
4. TopBand: ANC-4 vs MFJ Noise Canceller (score: 1): Author: W2pm@aol.com (W2pm); Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:51:52 EST; I have similar observations on the ANC4 espc on 160 and the need for both a large sense antenna and a way of controlling main antenna gain. I use a step attenuator on my main rcvr line to adjust the; /archives//html/Topband/1997-12/msg00098.html (7,336 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]